I'm no science expert. Just able to actually make comparisons.
As I recall, I said zebras were a different species, but they are the same genus. Apparently my parallel went over your head. My apologies.
Here's the parallel. A genus is to a species as a species is to a sub-species. In both cases, the former is an umbrella categorization of the latter. Hence, just as two species can share a genus without being of the same species, two sub-species can share a species without being of the same sub-species.
Just as a horse (categorization of species) and zebra (categorization of species) can share a genus (Equus) without being the same species (the identifying nomenclatures used: horse and zebra), a wolf (categorization of sub-species) and dog (categorization of subspecies) can share a species (lupus) without being the same subspecies (the identifying nomenclatures used: wolf and dog).
Believe it or not, I'm somehow proud of you for figuring that out.
isadore;1207551 wrote:BUT domestic dogs and wolves are the same species.
Correct, but domestic dog and wolf are both descriptors of sub-species. Hence, to say that a domesticated dog is a wolf is to say that sub-species category A is sub-species category B. They're not. They both fit under the umbrella taxonomy of a species, but if we're using the sub-species nomenclature, we can't say they're the same.
isadore;1207551 wrote:They are canis lupus (grey wolves) They are wolves.
The already established point (per the Wiki wolf link I've posted already, so I am not going to again) is that not all Canis lupus are wolves, which is precisely why that article made a specific point to say that there are two sub-species within the Canis lupus species which are not wolves, and that one of them was the domesticated dog.
If you'd like to debate that further, contact your local college's zoology professor. You're not arguing against me. You're arguing against the entire scientific community.
isadore;1207551 wrote:They are pack hunting carnivores.
Not per the university study I posted earlier, which said that domesticated dogs have lost most all links with their wolf counterparts. The Wikipedia link you yourself cited said that the traits they still share make them loyal and able to coexist in community with humans. Thus far, you have provided zero evidence to assert that dogs of any kind
hunt humans.
isadore;1207551 wrote:They search for the weak. When they make a big kill they do not immediately eat it.
When they kill anything they don't eat it. Noticed in one link you posted that a newborn had been killed by a 100-pound pit. Aside from the fact that it definitely wasn't a purebred, a dog that big would not have viewed a newborn as small prey ... yet he did not eat the baby. Moreover, and that example only further's my point about weakness, the dog did to the baby what a normal person would have easily survived, so again, the fact that infants die at a higher rate would only defend what can be proven: that the physiology of a smaller, weaker being doesn't permit it to withstand the same trauma that an adult could.
There is zero evidence for motive, as your attempts to say otherwise have been riddled with logical fallacies and assumptions.
isadore;1207551 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, lets play your little numbers game. Age span 12 to 14 years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Pit_Bull_Terrier
Given that fact, that one million number of your gets to be something of a joke, we would have to have 50 to 100 million pit bulls in America but
Pit bulls make up less than 5% of the total U.S. dog population.
Your reading comprehension is off. I said "... in a given year." Some die. Some are born. At any given moment, however, there are 5.5 million of them in the United States. If there are 5 deaths per year, then 1 out of every 1.1 million kills in a given year.
As for your latter assertion that there would need to be 50 to 100 million if we go by the decade's stats, it's flawed only in that it assumes that we need 50 to 100 million simultaneously. It doesn't take into account that you have almost an entirely new generation by the end of that time frame. Given that, provided a lack of growth in the population or of the unregistered numbers, you're looking at about 11 million on the low side having lived at least part of their lives during that time frame. That drops the potential of a pit bull killing a child down to 1 in every 208,333. If the overall numbers are double that number of 53, then we're looking at 1 in every 104,167 killing anybody at all. That means that for every 104,167 pit bull dogs that lived some time in that decade, 104,166 didn't kill anyone.
You're still applying a gross exception as the rule. Pop quiz: While fallacy (or fallacies) is that?
isadore;1207551 wrote:When they kill it is not a “fluke.”
With a 1 in 104,167 chance, I'd say it is. That number certainly doesn't support the notion that it is a trend or pattern of pit bull dogs, as the vast, vast, vast majority (as if I can't say it enough, 1 in 104,167) of them kill nobody.
isadore;1207551 wrote:In fact whenever the announcement is made dog kills child, it is a chalk bet that the killer was a pit.
Assuming that's true, fatal dog attacks are already absurdly rare, which is the point.
Let's do this in terms of trading cards. If there are 1,000 cards in a basic series set in a year, and there were 1,000 basic series sets made, then we've got 1,000,000 basic series cards.
Now, suppose there were 10 rare insert cards made (not per set, just 10 period, as is the custom). That gives us 1,000,010 total cards, including both the inserts and the basic set. Of those 10 inserts, 6 of them are Albert Pujols. Does that mean that if you buy a pack of cards, it would be commonplace to get an Albert Pujols insert? Of course not. But why not? After all, the majority of the inserts are Albert Pujols, right? Surely that means they're pretty common!
Not at all, because the inserts as a whole are already so rare that even if a single player is the majority of the inserts, it would still be immensely rare to receive one. It would be a "fluke" to receive an Albert Pujols insert, even though the majority of the inserts are Albert Pujols, because the Albert Pujols insert only comprises 6 cards out of 1,000,010.
Fatal attacks from pit bulls are to those Albert Pujols inserts what all dogs are to the total number of baseball cards, basic set included. IF you get killed by a dog, there is probably a 50% chance it's a pit bull, but the overwhelming majority of dogs that comprise ALL breeds, pit bulls included, don't harm or kill anyone.
I've already addressed this, going from 1 in 208,333 to 1 in 104,167.
redisposed.” Finally hidden in all this verbiage is the truth. They are predisposed to be killers.
